post heller litigation appendix 5 15 13
DESCRIPTION
Post Heller Litigation Appendix 5 15 13TRANSCRIPT
Post-Heller Litigation Summary Appendix: Ongoing Second Amendment Civil Litigation
Updated 5/15/13
The chart below lists significant pending federal and state civil cases involving Second Amendment challenges to federal, state, and local firearms laws and
practices. The cases are organized in categories based on the types of laws being challenged. Please note that suits challenging laws in more than one category
appear under one category only in the chart below.
Case Name/Number Challenged Jurisdiction
Nature of Second Amendment Challenge Status of Litigation
Licensing and Registration
Bauer v. Harris No. 11-01440
California
Challenging state law that permits the
California Department of Justice to levy fees
on the purchase and transfer of firearms.
The defendants answered the amended complaint on 3/8/12. As per a scheduling order
dated 8/10/12, discovery is to be completed by 6/27/13, dispositive motions must be
filed by 8/16/13, and a jury trial is scheduled for 1/28/14.
Ezell v. City of Chicago No. 10-5135
Chicago, IL
Challenging prohibition on firearm ranges and
requirement that residents complete an hour
of range training in order to receive a city
firearms permit
On 7/6/11, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court order denying the plaintiffs’
motion for preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the district court. On
9/29/11, the district court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case
as moot, and on 10/26/11, it denied the plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin enforcement of the
City’s new ordinance regulating firing ranges. Discovery is currently ongoing, and the
court granted the plaintiff's request to file another amended complaint on 2/22/13.
Discovery is to be completed by 7/31/13, and dispositive motions must be filed by
8/26/13. The defendant filed an answer to the plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint on
3/1/13.
2
Heller v. District of Columbia (“Heller II”) No. 10-7036 No. 08-1289
Washington,
DC
Challenging laws establishing certain
registration requirements and prohibiting
registration of assault weapons and large
capacity ammunition magazines
On 10/4/11, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court holding that the
District of Columbia’s prohibition against assault weapons and large capacity magazines
is constitutional and that District law requiring basic registration of handguns is
constitutional. The circuit court vacated the district court’s judgment upholding the
constitutionality of District law requiring the basic registration of long guns and
additional registration-related requirements for all firearms, remanding the case back to
the district court for further proceedings. On 7/31/12, following the District’s passage of
new firearms legislation, which addressed numerous requirements that the plaintiffs
were previously challenging, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. Discovery is
ongoing and is to be completed by 7/8/13.
Illinois Ass’n of Firearms Retailers v. City of Chicago (Previously Benson v. City of Chicago) No. 10-4184
Chicago, IL
Challenging ordinance adopted following the
McDonald decision, including provisions
prohibiting the sale of firearms, the carrying
of firearms outside of the home, the
registration of unsafe handguns, and the
possession of more than one operable
firearm, and provisions establishing firearm
training and minimum age requirements
Plaintiffs and defendants have both filed motions for summary judgment, which the
court has taken under advisement. Pursuant to court order, both parties have recently
filed supplemental briefs addressing the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in Moore v.
Madigan. On 4/2/13, the court denied a motion to relate this case to Hall v. City of
Chicago.
Kwong v. Bloomberg No. 12-1578
New York, NY
Challenging New York City’s handgun
licensing scheme, which requires payment of
a $340 fee for issuance or renewal of a 3-year
"Residence Premises" handgun license
On 3/26/12, the district court granted the defendants’ and Intervenor’s cross-motions
for summary judgment, finding that the licensing fee does not violate the Second
Amendment. The plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Second Circuit where the
plaintiffs-appellants filed their opening brief on 6/29/12. Appellate court briefing is
complete, and oral arguments took place on 2/1/13. A decision is pending
3
Lane v. Holder No. 11-1847
United States
and Virginia
Challenging federal law prohibiting the
transfer or receipt of firearms acquired
outside of one’s state of residence except
through a federally licensed dealer. Also
challenging District law requiring that all
firearms brought into the District be
registered with the assistance of a federally
licensed in-District dealer. Additionally,
challenging VA law prohibiting VA firearms
dealers from selling handguns to non-
residents of the state.
Following a district court order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction
and dismissing the action, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit. The
District of Columbia has been dismissed from the case pursuant to the consent of both
parties. Appellate court briefing is complete, and oral arguments took place on 10/23/12.
On 12/31/12, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court decision.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, which the
court denied on 2/26/13.
Mishaga v. Monken No. 10-3187
State of
Illinois
Challenging state requirement for Firearm
Owner Identification Card in order to possess
a firearm (challenge brought by non-resident
seeking to possess a firearm while staying in
an Illinois home)
Following a district court order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss on 11/22/10,
the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on 10/3/11. Briefing on the
motions is complete, and a decision is pending.
Osterweil v. Bartlett No. 11-2420
State of New
York, County
of Schoharie,
NY
Challenging a New York law that prohibits
issuance of a state license to possess a
handgun to anyone who is not domiciled in
the state.
The case is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
following a district court order awarding summary judgment to the defendants on
5/20/11. Appellate court briefing is complete, and oral arguments took place on
10/26/12. On 1/29/13, the merits panel held that certification of the question following
question to the NY Court of Appeals was warranted: Does the applicant residency
requirement for a handgun permit in NY State law require not merely residency but
domicile in the state of NY?. On 2/26/13, the NY Court of Appeals notified the district
court that they had accepted the certified question, and that the issues would be
decided after briefing and arguments. Briefing is underway in the NY Court of Appeals
and will be complete by 6/25/13.
Second Amendment Arms v. City of Chicago No. 10-4257
Chicago, IL
Challenging ordinance adopted following the
McDonald decision, including all of the
provisions at issue in Benson and numerous
additional provisions
Following the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Ezell and Chicago’s amendment of
several firearms laws, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on 9/9/11. On
9/25/12, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ partial motion to
dismiss but is allowing the plaintiffs one additional opportunity to amend their
complaint.
4
West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. v. City of Charleston No. 11-48
Charleston,
Dunbar, and
South
Charleston,
WV
Challenging local ordinances requiring
handgun registration, prohibiting the sale of
more than one handgun within a 30-day
period, requiring 72-hour waiting period for
completion of sale, prohibiting the purchase
of a firearm by a person who has received
voluntary mental health treatment or has
pending criminal charges, and prohibiting
carrying of a firearm without a license (or
carrying in certain areas)
On 9/20/12, the court granted in part and denied in part the Charleston defendants’
motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs had standing only with respect to certain
claims against Charleston, and it denied the Dunbar defendants’ and South Charleston
defendants’ motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs had standing as to their claims
against those defendants. The court did not address the parties’ Second Amendment
arguments. Most notably, however, the court invoked Pullman Abstention, staying the
case to permit the plaintiffs to present their state law claim, that the challenged laws
violate the state right to bear arms, to a state court of competent jurisdiction. Prior
thereto, the case had been stayed since 5/19/11, with the exception of briefing on
Pullman Abstention, pending a decision on the motion to dismiss.
Background Checks
Schoepf et al. v. Lindley et al. No. 13CEC601132
California
Challenging the California DOJ's alleged policy of not allowing the purchase of firearms by persons for whom there is insufficient data to complete an adequate background check until that process can be completed. Also challenging California DOJ's alleged policy of asking prospective purchasers to demonstrate that they qualify in this situation.
Plaintiff's complaint was filed on April 11, 2013.
Carrying of Firearms
Baker v. Kealoha No. 12-16258
State of Hawaii;
City and County
of Honolulu
Challenging state restrictions on
transporting and carrying firearms without a
license and alleging that state law vesting
licensing authorities with “sole and absolute
discretion” to deny licenses violates the
Second Amendment
At a hearing on 3/21/12, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary
injunction, granted the state defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, and
granted in part and denied in part the Honolulu defendants’ motion to dismiss. The
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on 6/3/12, and on 9/24/12, the
court ordered that oral arguments in Peruta v. County of San Diego, Richards v. Prieto,
and Baker v. Kealoha would be heard on the same day and before the same Ninth Circuit
panel. Oral arguments took place on 12/6/12, and a decision is pending.
5
Birdt v. Beck No. 12-55115 No. 10-8377
County of Los
Angeles, CA;
City of Los
Angeles, CA
Challenging the denial of plaintiff’s
application for concealed handgun license
After the district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on
1/13/12, the plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit, where plaintiffs-
appellants filed their opening brief on 5/26/12. On 8/25/12, Birdt filed a motion
requesting that Birdt, Thomson v. Torrance Police Dept., and Raulinaitis v. Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Dept. be heard before the same appellate panel. Briefing is complete,
and the appellant has requested that the case be submitted without oral argument. A
decision is pending.
Birdt v. San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department No. 13-00673
San Bernardino
County
Challenging the denial of plaintiff’s
application for concealed handgun license
Plaintiff's complaint was filed on April 12, 2013. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on
April 26, 2013. That motion has been fully briefed and is currently pending. The Court
took the hearing for that motion off calendar on May 6, 2013 and said that it would issue
a decision without oral argument.
Bonidy v. United States Postal Service No. 10-2408
United States
Challenging USPS regulation prohibiting the
carrying of firearms on postal property
(plaintiffs are concealed carry permit
holders)
Following a hearing on 11/18/11, the district court denied the defendants’ motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint. The defendants filed an answer on 12/9/11 and
filed a motion for summary judgment on 9/28/12. Plaintiffs have filed a cross-motion for
summary judgment, and a decision is pending. Briefing is complete on the motions for
summary judgment. A hearing on the motions for summary judgment is scheduled for
6/18/13.
Campbell v. Worthy No. 12-11496
County of
Wayne, MI; City
of Harper
Woods, MI
Challenging a Michigan law that prohibits
the carrying of a concealed firearm in a
motor vehicle without a license
The defendants answered the complaint on 8/31/12. On 3/27/13, defendants Wayne
County and Kym Worthy were dismissed from the suit. The Court issued an order on
May 1, 2013 extending the motion cutoff date to May 15, 2013.
Chardin v. Davis No. 11196
Commonwealth
of
Massachusetts
Challenging a Massachusetts law that
prohibits individuals with certain juvenile
records from obtaining a license to carry a
firearm
After the Boston Municipal Court dismissed the case on 3/30/11 based upon its finding
that the plaintiff was “statutorily disqualified” from carrying firearms, the plaintiff
appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. The plaintiff-appellant
filed his opening brief on 7/27/12. The case was argued on 2/4/13, and a decision is
pending.
6
Davis v. Grimes No. 13-10246
Weymouth,
MA; Danvers,
MA; Peabody,
MA; and
Worcester, MA
Challenging Massachusetts’s handgun carry
licensing law, in particular, the discretion the
law vests in local licensing authorities. The
plaintiffs argue that the law “vest local
licensing officials with the authority to
impose restrictions on LTC’s [licenses to
carry] as they ‘deem proper,’” which has
prevented the plaintiffs from exercising their
right to self-defense.
The plaintiffs filed the complaint on 2/7/13, and several of the defendants filed answers
in early-March. The court entered a scheduling order setting the deadline for fact
discovery as 6/17/2013, the deadline for dispositive motions as 7/1/2013, and a hearing
date for dispositive motions on 9/5/2013.
Hall v. City of Chicago No. 13-441
City of Chicago
Challenging Chicago ordinances that restrict
the carrying of firearms in public, including
one ordinance that prohibits the carrying of
a handgun outside of the home, another
ordinance that prohibits the carrying of a
long gun outside of one’s home or fixed
place of business, and related ordinances
that restrict the carrying of firearms to the
address provided on the firearm registration
certificate.
The plaintiffs filed the complaint on 1/18/13, soon after the Seventh Circuit released its
decision in Moore v. Madigan. The City of Chicago has filed a motion to dismiss this case
as duplicative of Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers v. City of Chicago. Briefing is
complete on the motion to dismiss and a hearing date has not been set.
Jackson v. King No. 12-00421
State of New
Mexico
Challenging a New Mexico law that restricts
the issuance of permits to carry concealed
firearms to United States citizens
The plaintiffs filed the complaint on 4/21/12, followed by a motion for preliminary
injunction. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary
judgment. On 4/30/13, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss as to one
defendant who did not have responsibility for enforcing the statute (on standing
grounds). On 4/30/13, the court also granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction (on Equal Protection grounds). The motion for summary judgment remains
pending.
Jacobs v. Reed No. 10-913
San Jose, CA;
Santa Clara
County, CA;
State of
California
Challenging state law prohibiting the
carrying of a concealed weapon without a
permit and state law vesting discretion in
issuing permits with local law enforcement
The case had been stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Nordyke v.
King. There has been no change since the en banc panel issued its decision in June.
7
McKay v. Hutchens No. 12-57049 No. 12-1458
Orange County,
CA
Challenging Orange County, California’s
implementation of the state’s concealed
carry law and interpretation of the "good
cause" requirement for CCW in California
The plaintiffs filed their complaint on 9/5/12 and filed a motion for preliminary
injunction on 9/13/12. At a hearing on the motion on 10/29/12, the court denied the
plaintiff’s motion. The plaintiffs appealed the denial to the Ninth Circuit on 11/9/12,
where they have filed their opening brief. The appellees filed their answering brief on
1/18/13. Briefing is now completed -- no oral argument date has been set.
Mehl v. Blanas No. 08-15773
Sacramento
County, CA;
State of
California
Challenging the denial of plaintiff’s
application for concealed handgun license
by County sheriff
The case was argued before the Ninth Circuit on 6/11/09, and the appeal was withdrawn
from submission pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Nordyke v. King. On 7/20/12, the
Ninth Circuit directed the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the impact of
Nordyke v. King and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Additional oral arguments took place
on 12/10/12, with participation from one amicus curiae from each side, and a decision is
pending.
Moore v. Madigan No. 12-01269 No. 11-3134
State of Illinois
Challenging law prohibiting the carrying of
handguns (either openly or concealed) in
public places
On 12/11/12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded a
lower court decision dismissing a Second Amendment challenge to an Illinois law that
bans the carrying of loaded and accessible firearms in public. The Seventh Circuit found
that the public carry ban violates the Second Amendment and is giving the Illinois state
legislature 180 days to adopt a new law that will allow at least some individuals in the
state to carry a concealed weapon in public. Appellees filed a petition for rehearing en
banc; however, on 2/22/13,the Seventh Circuit denied the petition. On 4/26/13, the
defendants asked the Supreme Court for a 30 day extension of the deadline to file a cert
petition. On 5/2/13, Justice Kagan granted the request, extending the deadline to
6/24/13.
Palmer v. District of Columbia No. 09-1482
Washington, DC Challenging laws prohibiting the open or
concealed carrying of handguns
Summary judgment motions were argued before the district court on 1/22/10, followed
by supplemental oral arguments that took place on 10/1/12. The court has taken its
decision under advisement. In the meantime, the court requested that the parties
submit briefs addressing whether the institutional plaintiff has standing.
Peruta v. County of San Diego No. 10-56971
San Diego, CA
Challenging sheriff’s denial of an application
for a license to carry a concealed weapon
and the licensing requirements of good
cause and of a duration of residency within a
jurisdiction
The case is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
following a district court order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
On 6/25/12, the court lifted a stay that had been in place since 12/20/11 pending a
decision in Nordyke v. King. On 9/24/12, the court ordered that oral arguments in Peruta
v. County of San Diego, Richards v. Prieto, and Baker v. Kealoha would be heard on the
same day and before the same panel of judges. Oral arguments took place on 12/6/12,
and a decision is pending.
8
Peterson v. Martinez (previously Peterson v. LaCabe or Peterson v. Garcia) No. 11-1149
Denver, CO;
State of
Colorado
Challenging residency requirement for the
issuance of a concealed carry permit
Following a district court order that awarded summary judgment to the Intervenor
Attorney General and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on 4/8/11. Oral
arguments took place on 11/17/11 and were continued to 3/19/12. After the Tenth
Circuit affirmed the lower court’s judgment on 2/22/13, the plaintiffs filed a petition for
rehearing en banc. On 4/8/13 the court denied the petition for rehearing en banc.
Piszczatoski v. Filko (f/k/a Muller v. Maenza) No. 12-1150 No. 10-6110
Morris, Passaic,
and Bergen
Counties,
Hammonton,
and Montville,
NJ; State of
New Jersey
Challenging state laws establishing
discretionary concealed handgun permitting
system and requiring a showing of
“justifiable need” or “urgent necessity” for a
permit’s issuance
On 1/12/12, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the suit, and
the plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. Appellate court briefing is complete, and oral arguments took place on 2/12/13.
In the meantime, the appellants have filed a supplemental appellate brief, and the NJ AG
has also been granted leave to file a supplemental brief. A decision is pending.
Pizzo v. Lee (f/k/a Pizzo v. Newsom) No. 09-4493
San Francisco,
CA; State of
California
Challenging state law granting local law
enforcement discretion in the issuance of
licenses to carry concealed weapons and
ordinances requiring safe storage of
handguns, prohibiting the discharge of
firearms, and prohibiting the sale of certain
ammunition that “serves no sporting
purpose” or is designed to expand or
fragment upon impact
Following the close of Discovery, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. On
12/5/12, the court issued an order denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
and granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. After the plaintiffs
appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court
entered an order granting the appellant's voluntary dismissal of appeal on 3/8/13.
Plastino v. Koster No. 12-01316
State of
Missouri; St.
Charles County,
MO.
Challenging a Missouri law that restricts the
issuance of concealed carry permits to U.S.
citizens
After the plaintiff filed the complaint on 7/23/12, Defendant Koster filed a motion to
dismiss the suit on 9/21/12. On 12/31/12, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction, and a hearing on the motion took place on 4/23/13. On 4/24/13 the court
denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. On 4/29/13 the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal and briefing is currently underway in the Eighth Circuit.
Raulinaitis v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. No. 12-56508
Los Angeles
County, CA
Challenging the Los Angeles Sheriff's
Department’s application of the “good
cause” requirement for a CCW permit under
California law.
Following a district court order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment
on 8/13/12, the plaintiffs immediately appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, where they filed their opening brief on 8/20/12. Briefing is now
complete.
9
Richards v. Prieto No. 11-16255
Yolo County, CA
Challenging the denial of plaintiffs’
applications for concealed handgun licenses
by County sheriff
The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on
5/16/11 following a district court order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment and granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. After the matter
had been fully briefed, the court stayed proceedings on 12/20/11 pending a decision in
Nordyke v. King. The court lifted the stay on 6/19/12, and ordered that oral arguments
in Peruta v.County of San Diego , Richards v. Prieto, and Baker v. Kealoha be heard on
the same day and before the same panel. Oral arguments took place on 12/6/12, and a
decision is pending.
Rothery v. Sacramento No. 09-16852
Sacramento
County, CA;
State of
California
Challenging the denial of plaintiff’s
application for concealed handgun license
by County sheriff
A district court order denying the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss has been appealed to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the plaintiffs-appellants have filed their
opening brief. The matter is presently stayed pending a decision in Mehl v. Blanas.
Shepard v. Madigan No. 12-1788
State of Illinois
Challenging laws prohibiting the carrying of
handguns (either openly or concealed) in
public places
On 12/11/12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded a
lower court decision dismissing a Second Amendment challenge to an Illinois law that
bans the carrying of loaded, accessible firearms in public. The Seventh Circuit found that
the public carry ban violates the Second Amendment and is giving the Illinois state
legislature 180 days to adopt a new law that will allow at least some individuals in the
state to carry a concealed weapon in public. The court recently denied the appellees’
petition for rehearing en banc. On 4/26/13, the defendants asked the Supreme Court for
a 30 day extension of the deadline to file a cert petition. On 5/2/13, Justice Kagan
granted the request, extending the deadline to 6/24/13.
Thomson v. Torrance Police Dept. No. 12-56236; No. 11-06154
City of
Torrance, CA;
Los Angeles
County
Challenging the Los Angeles Sheriff's
Department’s and City of Torrance, CA's
Police Department’s applications of the
“good cause” requirement for a CCW permit
under California law.
Following a district court order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and
granting the defendants' motions for summary judgment on 7/2/12, the plaintiff
appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where he filed
his opening brief on 7/5/12. Briefing is complete.
10
Woollard v. Gallagher (f/k/a Woollard v. Sheridan) No. 12-1437
State of
Maryland
Challenging state law requiring the
demonstration of cause prior to the issuance
of a concealed carry permit
Following a district court order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment
denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on 3/5/12, the defendants filed
a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On 8/1/12, the
Fourth Circuit granted the defendants’ motion to stay enforcement of the lower court’s
order enjoining enforcement of the “good and substantial reason” requirement for a
handgun carry permit pending the appeal. Fourth Circuit oral arguments took place on
10/24/12, and on 3/21/12, the Fourth Circuit reversed the lower court’s judgment. The
plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc on 4/4/13, which was denied on 4/16/13.
Young v. Hawaii (“Young III”) No. 12-17808
State of Hawaii
Challenging Hawaii laws that prohibit the
open and concealed carrying of handguns
without a license and that otherwise
regulate the carrying of firearms in public.
After the federal district court in Hawaii dismissed the suit in November 2012, the
plaintiffs appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where
appellate court briefing is currently underway.
Safe Storage/Discharge of Firearms
Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco No. 12-17803 No. 09-2143
San
Francisco, CA
Challenging ordinances requiring safe storage
of handguns, prohibiting the discharge of
firearms, and prohibiting the sale of certain
ammunition that “serves no sporting
purpose” or is designed to expand or
fragment upon impact
On 8/30/12, after the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which the court also denied, on
11/26/12. The plaintiffs have appealed the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, where their opening brief was filed on 2/7/13. Briefing is nearly complete;
the plaintiffs' reply brief is due 5/20/13.
Waiting Periods
Sylvester (a.k.a. Silvester) v. Harris No. 11-02137
State of
California
Challenging state law that requires a firearm
purchaser to wait ten days before receiving a
newly-acquired firearm
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on 2/24/12, which the defendants answered
on 3/15/12. As per a scheduling order dated 5/15/12, non-dispositive motions must be
filed by 9/25/13, dispositive motions must be filed by 10/30/13, and a pretrial
conference is scheduled to take place on 1/29/14.
11
Classes of Weapons
Haynie v. Harris No. 10-1255 (consolidated with Richards v. Harris No. 11-2493, and related to Richards v. Harris (“II”) No. 11-05580) and , Plog-Horowitz v. Harris (No. 12-0452)
State of
California
Challenging law prohibiting possession of
unregistered assault weapons on the grounds
that the definition of “assault weapons” in
unconstitutionally vague
On 10/21/11, the court granted defendant City of Pleasanton’s consolidated motion to
dismiss the complaint in Richards v. Harris “I” (No. 11-2493) and Haynie v. Harris (No. 10-
1255), holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue and that their claims were
not ripe for review. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on 11/4/11.
On 12/21/11, the district court ordered that a third case, Richards v. Harris “II” (No. 11-
05580), be related to the other Harris cases. On 3/1/12, the court granted the parties’
joint motion to relate a fourth case, Plog-Horowitz v. Harris (No. 12-0452) to the Harris
cases.
The defendants in Richard v. Harris “I” (No. 11-2493) and Haynie v. Harris (No. 10-1255)
filed a motion to dismiss two counts of the complaint on 12/23/11. On 7/30/12, the
court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss but is
allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.
On 9/6/12, the court ordered that, as per a stipulation submitted by the parties, Haynie
v. Harris would be consolidated with Richards v. Harris “I” and “II” and Plog-Horowitz v.
Harris for purposes of motions. The stipulation provides that any party may sever any of
the cases at any time. Plog-Horowitz v. Harris was dismissed on 10/29/12.
Maloney v. Rice No. 03-786
Nassau County,
NY
Challenging state law prohibiting the
possession of nunchaku (wooden stick
weapon)
The matter was vacated and remanded to the district court following McDonald.
Plaintiff has filed, and defendant has answered, a second amended complaint. Discovery
is ongoing.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Cuomo No. 13-00291
State of New
York; County of
Erie, NY; Town
of Lancaster, NY
Challenging numerous provisions of NY's
newly enacted "S.A.F.E. Act," including
prohibitions on the possession of LCAMS and
assault weapons.
The complaint was filed on 3/21/13. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
4/11/13. On 4/15/2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On
4/22/2013, the NRA filed an amicus brief in support of the PI motion. On 5/14/2013, the
New York State Sheriffs' Association filed an amicus brief in support of the PI motion.
12
Pena v. Cid No. 09-1185
State of
California
Challenging law prohibiting the sale of any
unsafe handgun (any handgun not included
on a state roster of handguns meeting certain
safety requirements)
After the parties filed a joint status report on 7/30/12, the court issued an order lifting
the stay that had been in place pending the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Nordyke v.
King. The parties have agreed to withdraw any motions that were pending at the time of
the stay. Discovery is to be completed by 5/3/13, and dispositive motions are due by
6/28/13.
Richards v. Harris No. 11-2493 (consolidated with Haynie v. Harris No. 10-1255, and related to Richards v. Harris (“II”) No. 11-05580) and , Plog-Horowitz v. Harris (No. 12-0452)
State of
California; City
of Rohnert
Park, CA
Challenging law prohibiting possession of
unregistered assault weapons on the grounds
that the definition of “assault weapons” in
unconstitutionally vague
The complaint was filed on 5/20/11. For additional information, see Haynie v. Harris,
above.
Richards v. Harris (“II”) No. 11-05580
State of
California;
Sonoma
County, CA
Sheriff’s Office
Challenging law prohibiting possession of
unregistered assault weapons on the grounds
that the definition of “assault weapons” in
unconstitutionally vague
The complaint was filed on 11/17/11. For additional information, see Haynie v. Harris,
above.
Wilson v. Cook County No. 112026
Cook County,
Illinois
Challenging ordinance prohibiting the
possession or sale of any assault weapon or
large capacity magazine
On 5/25/11, the Supreme Court of Illinois announced that it would hear an appeal of the
appellate court decision affirming the trial court’s dismissal of suit. Plaintiffs-appellants
filed their opening brief in the Supreme Court on 7/29/11, and the defendants-appellees
filed their response brief on 11/18/11. Oral arguments took place on 1/18/12, and on
4/5/12, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the plaintiffs’ due process and
equal protection claims, but reversed and remanded dismissal of the Second
Amendment claim. The case is now back in the trial court, where the parties are
presenting evidence as to whether the ordinance meets intermediate scrutiny.
13
Prohibited from Purchasing/Possessing Firearms
Dearth v. Holder
No. 12-05305
No. 09-00587
United States
Challenging plaintiff's inability to purchase
and receive firearms under federal law due
to his lack of residence within any state (as
a United States citizen who resides in
Canada)
Following the district court’s dismissal of suit for lack of standing, plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On 4/15/11, the D.C. Circuit
reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
After the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied the
plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on 9/27/12, the plaintiffs appealed the decision
to the D.C. Circuit, where briefing is complete.
Enos v. Holder No. 12-15498
United States
Challenging federal law imposing a lifetime
ban on handgun acquisition and possession
for domestic violence misdemeanants,
alleging that it conflicts with a California
law that imposes a ten-year ban on firearm
acquisition and possession by domestic
violence misdemeanants.
On 2/28/12, the federal district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the suit,
holding that the law does not violate the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs have filed a
notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where briefing is
complete.
Fisher v. Kealoha No. 12-17199 No. 11-00589
City and County
of Honolulu
Challenging Honolulu law enforcement
officers’ exercise of discretion in denying
state licenses to purchase firearms.
On 4/19/12, the district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions
to dismiss, allowing the plaintiff’s Second Amendment claim against the defendants to
proceed. Additionally, on 6/29/12, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a
preliminary injunction based in part upon a finding that the plaintiff is likely to succeed on
the merits of his Second Amendment claim. On 10/1/12, after the court denied the
defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the 6/29/12 order, Honolulu appealed the
court’s decision granting the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However, on 10/31/12, the parties stipulated to dismiss
the appeal voluntarily. The case is now proceeding in the district court where the
plaintiffs have just filed motions for permanent injunction and summary judgment.
Lajous et al. v. Bruning et al. No. 13-03070
State of
Nebraska
Challenging a state law prohibiting legal
permanent residents from obtaining a
concealed carry permit
The complaint was filed on 4/4/13. The Court granted defendants' motion for additional
time to respond to the complaint and defendants now have until 5/27/13 to answer or
otherwise respond to the complaint.
14
NRA v. McCraw (previously Jennings v. McCraw and D’Cruz v. McCraw) No. 12-10091 No. 10-141
State of Texas
Challenging state law requiring an
individual to be 21 years old (or above the
age of 18 with military service) in order to
acquire a concealed carry permit
Following a district court order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
and denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on 1/19/12, the plaintiffs have
filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. After the parties
submitted briefs addressing the similarities between this case and NRA v. ATF, in which
the court just issued a ruling, oral arguments took place on 12/3/12. A decision is
pending.
Schrader v. Holder No. 11-05352 No. 10-1736
United States
Challenging plaintiff's inability to purchase
a firearm due to a misdemeanor assault
conviction. (It appears that the conviction
is being treated as a disqualifying offense in
the federal NICS background check system
because the underlying law did not provide
a maximum sentence length.)
On 12/23/11, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied the
plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs immediately appealed the
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where oral arguments took place
on 10/10/12. After the appellate court affirmed the district court judgment on 1/11/13,
the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which the court denied on 3/13/13. A
cert. petition would be due on 6/11/13.
Wesson v. Town of
Salisbury
No. 13-10469
Town of
Salisbury, MA;
Town of Natick,
MA
Challenging a Massachusetts law that
prevents any individual who has been
convicted in any jurisdiction of a crime
involving the use, possession, or sale of a
controlled substance from qualifying to
receive a license to carry or purchase a
firearm
The complaint was filed on 3/1/13. Defendants filed an answer on 5/1/13.
Wilson v. Holder No. 11-01679
United States
Challenging ATF regulations that classify
medical marijuana card holders as unlawful
users or addicts of a controlled substance.
The complaint alleges that the classification
prohibits sales of firearms to anyone
holding a medical marijuana card under
federal law and prohibits medical
marijuana card holders from possessing
firearms under federal law.
The complaint was filed on 10/18/11. On 2/7/12, the court granted the parties’ request
to dismiss the individual defendants from the suit. The remaining defendants have filed a
motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and briefing on the motion is ongoing.
15
Restrictions on In-Home Possession
Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority
No. 12-3433
No. 10-473
State of
Delaware
Challenging lease provision prohibiting
possession of firearms in public housing
After the district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on
7/27/12, holding that the lease provision withstands intermediate scrutiny, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit On 8/27/12. The
case has been fully briefed, and oral arguments are scheduled to take place in the case
on 5/22/13. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs have requested that the court certify questions
impacting the state right to bear arms to the Delaware Supreme Court, whereas the
defendants are opposed to certification.
Return of Seized Firearms
Churchill v. Harris No. 12-01740
State of
California; City of
San Francisco;
City of Oakland,
CA
Challenging the San Francisco Police
Department's and Oakland Police
Department's interpretations of CA law
governing the return of seized firearms
The parties filed a stipulation resolving the case against the City of Oakland on 8/30/12.
On 11/20/12, the court dismissed the state defendants from the suit based upon
Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds, and on 2/28/13, the parties filed a notice of
settlement and dismissal of the remaining claims against San Francisco.
Sale of Firearms
Kole v. Village of Norridge No. 11-3871
Village of
Norridge
Challenging an ordinance banning new
firearms dealers in the town.
On 4/19/13, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to the
Second Amendment challenge, finding that there was insufficient information at the
pleading stage to determine whether the law was justified under any level of scrutiny.
The court did dismiss some of the plaintiffs' other claims, and plaintiffs have until May
17, 2013 to file a further amended complaint.
Teixeira v. County of Alameda No. 12-03288
County of
Alameda, CA
Challenging County laws that prohibit the
operation of any gun store within 500 feet of
any school, liquor store, or restaurant.
After the complaint was filed on 6/25/12, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
9/27/12, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction on 11/5/12.
Following a hearing, the court issued an order granting the defendants' motion to
dismiss and denying the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction on 2/26/13. On
4/1/13 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.